Technology plays a pivotal role in faculty research success, which positively impacts academia and society. The technological adaptation model (TAM) was used to predict how faculty research competence and technological competence for doing research related to their success. Survey data were collected from 336 faculty who were working at North American universities recruited via social media. This study found that faculty research and technological competencies varied significantly based on their demographic characteristics. Faculty research competencies, technological competencies, attitude towards doing research, and success had a positive and moderate level of correlation. A structural equation modeling (SEM) revealed that faculty research success was positively and significantly predicted by faculty attitude in conducting research, and faculty technological competencies significantly predicted faculty research activity. The findings suggest universities can offer need-based training for faculty to improve their competencies in research and ensure the latest technology for research, which may increase faculty research success.
AjegbomogunF. O.PopoolaS. O. (2013) Motivational strategies and utilisation of Internet resources as determinants of research productivity of lecturers in universities of agriculture in Nigeria. Education for Information30(3–4): 167–189. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-140943
2.
AkramiKAkramiMAkramiF, et al. (2024) Investigating the integration of big data technologies in higher education settings. Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary on Social and Technology2(2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.31004/ijmst.v2i2.296
3.
AkuegwuBANwi-ueFD (2018) Assessing graduate students' acquisition of research skills in universities in Cross river state Nigeria for development of the total person. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences6(5): 29–44.
4.
Al-MughairiHBhaskarP (2025) Exploring the factors affecting the adoption AI techniques in higher education: insights from teachers' perspectives on ChatGPT. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning18(2): 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-09-2023-0129
5.
Al-TannirMAlFayyadIAbu-ShaheenA, et al. (2017) Clinical research skills assessment: an investigation into the determinants of effective research. Cureus9(11): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1870
6.
AlzumanA (2015) Faculty research productivity in Saudi Arabian public universities: a human capital investment perspective. Doctoral dissertation. Virginia Commonwealth University. https://doi.org/10.25772/N27E-9F08
7.
AngaizDJanSMehmoodS (2021) Exploring the relationship between faculty research productivity and their individual characteristics. Perspectives on Humanities and Social Sciences2: 1–16.
8.
Armijos ValdiviesoPAvolio AlecchiBArévalo-AvecillasD (2022) Factors that influence the individual research output of university professors: the case of Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education21(4): 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/15381927211008684
9.
AtibuniDZOlemaDKSsenyongaJ, et al. (2017) Mediation effect of research skills proficiency on the core self-evaluations research engagement relationship among master of education students in Uganda. Journal of Education and Practice8(15): 103–108. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1143986.pdf
10.
BalochNSimingLAbrahaA, et al. (2021) Faculty research productivity: differences between foreign and local doctoral degree holders in Pakistan. Higher Education82: 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00630-2
11.
BanduraA (1999) Social cognitive theory of personality. Handbook of personality2(1): 154–196.
12.
Behar-HorensteinLSBeckDESuY (2018) Perceptions of pharmacy faculty need for development in educational research. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning10(1): 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2017.09.019
BrancoliniKRKennedyMR (2017) The development and use of a research self-efficacy scale to assess the effectiveness of a research training program for academic librarians. Library and Information Research41(124): 44–84. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg760
15.
BrewABoudDNamgungSU, et al. (2016) Research productivity and academics' conceptions of research. Higher Education71(5): 681–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9930-6
16.
BrowneMWCudeckR (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model ft. Sage Focus Editions154: 136.
17.
ByrneBM (2010) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. 2nd edition. Routledge.
D'AmicoRVermigliPCanettoSS (2011) Publication productivity and career advancement by female and male psychology faculty: the case of Italy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education4(3): 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022570
DweckCSMoldenDC (2005) Self-theories: their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In: ElliotAJDweckCS (eds) Handbook of Competence and Motivation. Guilford Press, pp. 122–140.
22.
EcclesJSWigfieldA (2023) Expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: reflections on the legacy of 40+ years of working together. Motivation Science9(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000275
23.
FischerFKollarIUferS, et al. (2014) Scientific reasoning and argumentation: advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research5: 28–45. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i2.96
24.
ForrestC. B.ChesleyF. D.TregearM. L.MistryK. B. (2018) Development of the learning health system researcher core competencies. Health services research53(4): 2615–2632. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12751
25.
FungJLM (2017) Factors Impacting Faculty Research Productivity at a highly-ranked University. Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California.
26.
GranicAMarangunicN (2019) Technology acceptance model in educational context: a systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology50: 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864
27.
GurayaSYKhoshhalKIYusoffMSB, et al. (2018) Why research productivity of medical faculty declines after attaining professor rank? A multi-center study from Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Pakistan. Medical Teacher40(sup1): S83–S89. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1465532
28.
GuttmanMD (1997) Faculty Scholarly Productivity: A Multilevel Analysis. Doctoral dissertation.
29.
HanJHSaHJ (2022) Acceptance of and satisfaction with online educational classes through the technology acceptance model (TAM): the COVID-19 situation in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review23(3): 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09716-7
30.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cut of criteria for ft indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6(1): 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
31.
KaychengS (2015) Multicolinearity and indicator redundancy problem in world university rankings: an example using times higher education world university ranking 2013–2014 data. Higher Education Quarterly69(2): 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813200807_0013
32.
KistnerKSparckEMLiuA, et al. (2021) Academic and professional preparedness: outcomes of undergraduate research in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research4(4): 3–9. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/4/4/1
33.
KlineRB (2005) Methodology in the Social Sciences. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd edition. Guilford Press.
34.
Kotini-ShahP.ManB.PobeeR.HirshfieldL. E.RismanB. J.BuhimschiI. A.WeinreichH. M. (2022) Work–life balance and productivity among academic faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic: A latent class analysis. Journal of Women’s Health31(3): 321–330. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2021.0277
35.
LeiMLomaxRG (2005) The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling12(1): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1201_1
36.
LidolfSPascoD (2020) Educational technology professional development in higher education: a systematic literature review of empirical research. Frontiers in Education5(35): 35. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00035
37.
LivintiR.Gunnesch-LucaG.IliescuD. (2021) Research self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist56(3): 215–242. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1886103
38.
MacCallumRCBrowneMWSugawaraHM (1996) Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods1: 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
39.
MaddensLDepaepeFJanssenR, et al. (2021) Research skills in upper secondary education and in first year of university. Educational Studies47(4): 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1715204
40.
MalteseAHarshJJungE (2017) Evaluating undergraduate research experiences—development of a self-report tool. Education Sciences7(4): 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7040087
41.
MarikyanDPapagiannidisS (2025) Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a review. In: PapagiannidisS (ed) Theoryhub Book. https://open.ncl.ac.uk
42.
MarshHWByrneBMYeungAS (1999) Causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recommendations. Educational Psychologist34(3): 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_2
MexhuaniB (2025) Adopting digital tools in higher education: opportunities, challenges and theoretical insights. European Journal of Education60(1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12819
45.
MirriahiNVaidBBurnsD (2015) Meeting the challenge of providing flexible learning opportunities: considerations for technology adoption amongst academic staff. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology41(1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.21432/T25G71
46.
MorrisonMALentRW (2014) The advisory working alliance and research training: test of a relational efficacy model. Journal of Counseling Psychology61(4): 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000030
47.
NafukhoFMWekulloCSMuyiaMH (2019) Examining research productivity of faculty in selected leading public universities in Kenya. International Journal of Educational Development66: 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.01.005
48.
National Science Board, National Science Foundation (2023) Publications output: U.S. trends and international comparisons. Science and Engineering Indicators 2024. NSB-2023-33. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333/
49.
NewmanABavikYLMountM, et al. (2021) Data collection via online platforms: challenges and recommendations for future research. Applied Psychology70(3): 1380–1402. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12302
50.
NgocHDHoangLHHungVX (2020) Transforming education with emerging technologies in higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Higher Education9(5): 252–258. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n5p252
51.
NistorNLercheTWeinbergerA, et al. (2014) Towards the integration of culture into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. British Journal of Educational Technology45(1): 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01383.x
52.
OrCCPChapmanE (2021) Determinants of online assessment adoption in a technical college. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science5(4): 601–619. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.291
PasupathyRSiwatuKO (2014) An investigation of research self-efficacy beliefs and research productivity among faculty members at an emerging research university in the USA. Higher Education Research and Development33(4): 728–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.863843
55.
PaulhusDL (2017) Socially desirable responding on self-reports. In: Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer, pp. 1–5.
56.
PekrunR (2006) The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review18: 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
57.
QuimboMATSulaboEC (2014) Research productivity and its policy implications in higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education39(10): 1955–1971. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.818639
58.
RahimiRAOhGS (2025) Beyond theory: a systematic review of strengths and limitations in technology acceptance models through an entrepreneurial lens. J Market Anal13: 1195–1218. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-024-00318-x
59.
RandazzoMPrieferRPasupathyR (2021) Research self-efficacy and productivity in communication sciences and disorders faculty. Journal of Communication Disorders92: 106107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2021.106107
60.
RogersSWGoktasRK (2010) Exploring engineering graduate student research proficiency with student surveys. Journal of Engineering Education99(3): 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01061.x
61.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
62.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2020) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary educational psychology61: 101860. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
63.
ŞahinF.DoğanE.İlicU.ŞahinY. L. (2021) Factors influencing instructors’ intentions to use information technologies in higher education amid the pandemic. Education and Information Technologies26(4): 4795–4820. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10497-0
64.
SalahuddinM (2025) Which University Faculty are Successful Researchers? Developing and Testing Measures of Research Competence to Predict Faculty Research Motivation and Success (Publication No. 7537). Doctoral dissertation. University of North Dakota.
65.
SalahuddinMStupniskyRH (2025) University faculty research competence: a systematic literature review of core components, distinctions, and measures. International Journal of Educational Methodology11(1): 81–95. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.11.1.81
66.
SalahuddinMHobergRStupniskyR (2026) A systematic review identifying the measures and factors relating to faculty research success. Higher Education Studies16(1): 213. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v16n1p213
67.
SavageWEOlejniczakAJ (2021) Do senior faculty members produce fewer research publications than their younger colleagues? Evidence from Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States. Scientometrics126(6): 4659–4686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03957-4
68.
StupniskyRHHallNCDanielsLM, et al. (2017) Testing a model of pretenure faculty members’ teaching and research success: motivation as a mediator of balance, expectations, and collegiality. The Journal of Higher Education88(3): 376–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1272317
69.
StupniskyRHHallNCPekrunR (2019) Faculty enjoyment, anxiety, and boredom for teaching and research: instrument development and testing predictors of success. Studies in Higher Education44(10): 1712–1722. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665308
70.
StupniskyRHLarivièreVHallNC, et al. (2023) Predicting research productivity in STEM faculty: the role of self-determined motivation. Research in Higher Education64(4): 598–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09718-3
71.
TahsildarNHasaniR (2021) Faculty-perceived research skills and research productivity: a case study at a public university in Afghanistan. Indian Journal of Science and Technology14(3): 229–238. https://doi.org/10.17485/IJST/v14i3.2065
72.
TambeJMinkandeJZMoifoB, et al. (2014) Students perspectives on research and assessment of a model template designed to guide beginners in research in a medical school in Cameroon. BMC Medical Education14(1): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-014-0269-y
73.
VanDerSchaafHPDaimTUBasogluNA (2021) Factors influencing student information technology adoption. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management70(2): 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3053966
74.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
75.
WaithakaMChilimoWOnyanchaOB (2022) Factors influencing the adoption and use of open access scholarly publishing in selected public universities in Kenya. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science88(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7553/88-1-2049
76.
YaginFHPinarAde Sousa FernandesMS (2024) Statistical effect sizes in sports science. Journal of Exercise Science & Physical Activity Reviews2(1): 164–171. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12601138
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
